Still Here, Still Thinking, But Life…..

I feel badly that I have been so absent here. (And so many of you have carried on so nicely without me.) There–better to just start with that. But why haven’t I been here? Life intervenes? Not in any dramatic way, and not in a bad way (thanks for those concerns) but just in the mass of little things that pile up.

I’m tired, too, of dashing over to this, apologizing, putting up one meager post, and then failing to find the time to build momentum. But you know, being tired of it doesn’t mean I don’t stop trying. It just makes it harder to try. So here I am–I will try again to get myself on more regular footing.

I must have 17 tabs open with things to comment on , none of which seem totally pressing. I think what I will try to do is put together a few things that in some (as yet not totally clear way) seem related to me. The uniting theme–if there is one–is about DNA and inherited characteristics and the cultural stuff around that, I think.

So I’m pretty sure most of you saw the stories about the blond children turning up in Roma families. Here’s one of the later ones, just as an example. There is so much to say (and much has been said) about this story. Even just looking at the picture there’s so much I’d like to unpack.

So clearly the line of reasoning we are invited to follow is that the child does not look like the adult, ergo, the adult isn’t the child’s parent. Or perhaps it is really that the adult isn’t the child’s genetic parent. (That difference–between the unmodified parent and the genetic parent–is important to me, of course.)

Now in this case it lead the authorities to investigate a range of possibilities including kidnapping and child-selling. It turns out that indeed, the parent is not the child’s genetic parent. As far as I know, a range of questions (Was the child sold? Was there some scheme to illegally claim benefits?) remain.

So one thing you can fairly say is that this is one of those instances in which DNA helped us find at least a part of the “truth”–it allowed us identify the actual genetic parents of the child. This is clearly a good thing. But it doesn’t mean that our reliance on DNA should be uncomplicated or that it is always good.

For instance, I think it’s pretty clear that the reason this case came to attention is that people looked at this child and looked at this adult and thought they couldn’t be genetically related–because the Roma woman (like most Romas) has dark skin and hair while the child is blonde. Indeed, this same rationale lead to the removal of other blond children from other Roma adult’s care in the following days. The assumption was that these “white” children must have “white” genetic parents. (I’m putting “white” in quotes because I’m not sure what it means, really.) You can see this from the initial stories about who the blond child might be.

So here, in a way, is DNA at work again. Not directly–as via DNA testing–but as the underlying rational for some cultural assumptions–assumptions that children physically resemble their genetic parents in various regards. Of course, the actual DNA testing showed that the blond child in question was in fact a child of Romas–though not the Romas she was living with. And two Irish children who were removed from the custody of their genetic parents because of the blond/Roma contrast were returned when DNA testing established that they were indeed genetically related.

It’s hard for me to miss the irony here–that at once DNA can help us find certainty and also support assumptions that lead us away from certainty. The Irish Roma parents were both victimized by assumptions about DNA and genetics and rescued by the reality of DNA testing.

What I think this shows is that thinking about genetics and DNA is complicated. DNA testing is quite useful. It helps us find out the truth about specific facts–just imagine how these cases would have gone without DNA testing–those Irish children would probably never have been returned to their actual parents.

But the science of DNA gets simplified (and distorted?) when it enters into the public imagination and then it may operate in ways that can be quite troubling. There’s a whole other layer to the story about the Roma children–one that has a lot to do with how we (generally) think about race. I don’t think is chance that the children were blond and the suspected parents dark. It’s right to wonder whether a dark-skinned child with blond parents would have attracted the same kind of attention. And the Roma, in particular, have long been associated with child-stealing in ways that seem to have as much to do with racism as historical facts. Whatever the history, the idea that the white child must have been kidnapped by the Roma fit comfortably into a pre-existing belief structure and what we think we know about DNA just made it seem like a reasonable assumption.

13 responses to “Still Here, Still Thinking, But Life…..”

Julie,
I’m so glad to hear that you are well. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we very much appreciate it the time that you take to find interesting stories and analysis for us to discuss!

Thank you for finding these other stories. I had seen the initial story, but did not see that they had genetically matched the child to another Roma family.

It does look like prejudice against the Roma drew the initial attention of the state authorities, and it’s ironic that she is of Roma heritage.

I’ve long been intrigued with how genetics spins out in relation to skin colour. I know some interracial families in which the genetic children have all sorts of skin tones. My friend’s sister, who is quite dark, is often mistaken for either an adopted mother or a nanny to her very light skinned child.

Wow. I never knew that. Perhaps we all over-estimate what we know about genetics. And maybe some of our truisms aren’t true.

Certainly what makes people resemble each other in the eyes of others is complicated. IF you listen to impersonators (like the folks on Saturday Night Live) talk about how they do it, all lot isn’t about physical resemblance. IT’s about a small number of characteristic things–maybe the way one holds one’s head. Some if this is might be inherited, but some is not.

And then there is race. More to say there, too. The bit on Code Switch was interesting to me for that reason. I see there is more there today, but I haven’t read it yet.

I’m not sure what you are Hear! Hear-ing Tess’s comment about. I’m wondering if it has something to do with your desired mandatory DNA testing of all newborns and adults to keep accurate CDC records of genetic progenitors and making sure the actual progenitors are designated as the legal parents (but not necessarily guardians) of their offspring and held responsible for them. And I’m wondering if that kind of mandatory official paternity testing is what Ki Sarita means by “the authorities to get involved” below.

Tess said “I think I speak for all of us when I say that we very much appreciate it the time that you take to find interesting stories and analysis for us to discuss!”
I appreciate your subtle attempt to educate me on my spelling errors as well. So its ‘I hear ya’ vs ‘right here witcha’ gotcha.

Hi Julie, I really enjoy your blog, but it seems nearly every post begins with an apology for not posting more frequently. I get your posts in a feed, and only the first few lines are in the tease, so it would be so much better if you dive into the topic so readers like me who have limited time can see right away what the story is about. Your readers know you are busy, so we are happy when you post when you can. No apology needed.

I suppose I mean it is just a part of who I am. Personality, I guess. I often wonder about whether things like this are 1) genetically determined and 2) heritable. I think most people who have raised a child have found that there is some core temperament (for lack of a better word) that doesn’t really change. But I have no idea where that comes from.

Probably a more serious answer than was called for, eh? That’s in my nature, too.

That’s all rearing as far as I’m concerned – your mother (rearing) was an apologizer maybe as in “I’m sorry the house is such a mess” when it was totally clean? Most women are apologizers what is that about? Preprogramed to let people know we feel badly for not having more arms

you don’t owe is anything julie….. the reaso you have less time now than in the past is prob,because the blog has gotten more active with more debates, which means you are doing something right not wrong

Blog Stats

458,540 hits

About the Blog

Family law is shaped by and helps shape our worlds. It changes all the time, propelled by the diversity of our families and our experiences. It matters (and should matter) to many of us. Whether or not we think about the law, we are subject to it. That's why I started this blog.

Many topics in family law fascinate me. I hope to create a forum for intelligent and sustained discussion of some of the more compelling family law issues. I have started here with questions of parentage--who are the parents of a child. It's not as simple as it seems. But it is a terribly important one. By building slowly, case by case, story by story, I hope to slowly develop a rich and layered understanding of what it means to be a parent, one that perhaps, some day, the law can learn from.

My hope is that many of you will join me in the project and that the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts.